Law Upcoming vote on Net Neutrality laws - How many times do we need to strike this shit down?

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.
Oh, and Comcast is already lobbying.

I'm so sick of this shit, seriously. The FCC is whoring out for Comcast and AT&T instead of ensuring that American citizens have equal access to the internet.
 
So basically it's really just moving those industries over to a platform that didn't intend to be used in this way but they have no choice.

Yes in a way. Parents used to drop their kids in front of the TV. Now they hand them the iphone or ipad. They will start to demand the same regulations that TV has. TV is no match for instant infinite on demand content. The internet will have to be carved up because regular people want convenience and assurances the internet is safe for their kids to be on 4-8 hours a day. How convenient is it to have all the kids sites on a handy plan linked to their kids ipad. While they on their laptop get the social media/news/porn plans. If you've argued with anyone on the internet, most people lack the motivation or time to even search out their own studies or articles to come to their own conclusions. And they have access to the biggest information library in the history of the world at the touch of a button.

It's not really a question of if, it'll be a question of when.
 
Yes in a way. Parents used to drop their kids in front of the TV. Now they hand them the iphone or ipad. They will start to demand the same regulations that TV has. TV is no match for instant infinite on demand content. The internet will have to be carved up because regular people want convenience and assurances the internet is safe for their kids to be on 4-8 hours a day. How convenient is it to have all the kids sites on a handy plan linked to their kids ipad. While they on their laptop get the social media/news/porn plans. If you've argued with anyone on the internet, most people lack the motivation or time to even search out their own studies or articles to come to their own conclusions. And they have access to the biggest information library in the history of the world at the touch of a button.

It's not really a question of if, it'll be a question of when.
True. I suppose I had been thinking of this for a while. Hopefully the underground publication movement sees a resurgence after this.
 
@14⚡⚡ weev ⚡⚡88 I've heard you know about BBS Systems, how viable are they?
Hard to say, that was pre-WWW to say the least and required you to dial into a specific terminal in order to use it (again, the days of using landline modems when this was a thing). I would think it's antiquated to what those like us would want these days unless it was overhauled.
 
I get why Comcast is a massive faggot, but how did the onlines exist as long as they did before Net Neutrality was a thing if it was so essential to going online and calling Comcast a massive faggot?

This is the most... magnificently artful misunderstanding of the issue I have encountered in a while. Bravo. Usually, it's just some old dude who still visits free republic, who is dead sure that it has something to do with the Fairness Doctrine that was abolished under Reagan, only applied to a series of tubes.

The issue is not that you wouldn't be allowed to call Comcast a massive faggot. It's that you would be limited to some shitty chat room in the Comcast app to yell hopelessly into the void about it, unless you ponied up extra money for the Facebook plan, so you could yell meaninglessly about it on Facebook.

Really, the extra fucking stupid shit about this is that Pai is going to end up handing control of access to alt-right sites to the likes of Verizon, who has a vested interest in making sure, going forward, that Verizon isn't associated with "letting" The Children or whatever get access to "the dark web." This is so going to bite the GOP in the ass. And I will laugh and laugh, because fuck those guys.


I am assuming that most of you guys are too young to remember Compuserve?
 
Last edited:
This is the most... magnificently artful misunderstanding of the issue I have encountered in a while. Bravo. Usually, it's just some old dude who still visits free republic, who is dead sure that it has something to do with the Fairness Doctrine that was abolished under Reagan, only applied to a series of tubes.

The issue is not that you wouldn't be allowed to call Comcast a massive faggot. It's that you would be limited to some shitty chat room in the Comcast app to yell hopelessly into the void about it, unless you ponied up extra money for the Facebook plan, so you could yell meaninglessly about it on Facebook.

Really, the extra fucking stupid shit about this is that Pai is going to end up handing control of access to alt-right sites to the likes of Verizon, who has a vested interest in making sure, going forward, that Verizon isn't associated with "letting" The Children or whatever get access to "the dark web." This is so going to bite the GOP in the ass. And I will laugh and laugh, because fuck those guys.
If this pricing plan fear is so real then why hadn't this happened all those years that we didn't have Net Neutrality?
 
So I went to read Pajit's article in the WSJ and this happened. How Ironic.

20551021-6edb-461f-ac1c-ad6f884046a6.png
 
There absolutely have been violations of the "principle" of Net Neutrality over the years. There have also been providers who have tried to limit people to their own proprietary browsers, etc.

Really, the issue at the moment is that the web is centralizing, so right now you can get away with these sorts of cable-style packages, and tons of people who really only use the web for facebook, youtube, amazon, and buzzfeed already aren't going to complain much.

It's like back in the day, when a huge chunk of people thought "the internet" was 97% comprised of "my email."




Really, if you consider yourself in any way "anti-SJW," think about it this way: do you want Verizon or Comcast's "diversity president" to decide what qualifies as a "hate site" that they don't anyone accessing on their network, because it would tarnish their corporate image? I mean, aside from it baldly being about them getting more of your money, that is probably the biggest danger. Not the government limiting your speech. Corporate boards doing it. And if you don't like it, too bad. That is just the wisdom of "the market." Verizon is not able to withhold your first amendment rights, because they are a private company. Think about the threads here about Twitter/Patreon/CloudFlare/HostGator, etc.
 
Last edited:
If this pricing plan fear is so real then why hadn't this happened all those years that we didn't have Net Neutrality?
I lived in the Philippines for 7 months. The Philippines does not have Net Neutrality.

Most people don't know this, but in the 3rd world Facebook is massive. Few people have PCs or Laptops, everyone has cellphones, and Facebook is the king of mobile. Every store, every service, every person has a Facebook page.

Facebook's largest competitor is Google, and the Filipino government is easily bribed. There is one ISP/Mobile Carrier in Manila, and that ISP has contracts with Facebook. For a mere 5 pesos a month (1 cent), you can get an online data plan with 100% free access to Facebook and only Facebook. Getting a full data plan costs a first-world amount of money few people can afford. Because of this, no one in the Philippines has any incentive to build their own website. No one can access it. No one would know how. They just use Facebook.

It goes beyond that. I paid $70 USD (3500PHP) for 50Mbps Internet (6MBps). If I accessed Gmail, Google, YouTube, Google Docs, etc, my Internet would slow to a crawl. It would take 45 seconds to open Google. Videos would stutter. Facebook? Instantly. Switch to my VPN and hide my connections's source/destination, Google loads instantly again. Faster to connect to Sweden and then to Swedish Google than it is to connect to Filipino Google from the Philippines.

This is specifically what Net Neutrality is designed to protect against. It is not fiction. It is not slippery slope. It already exists.
 
Last edited:
am assuming that most of you guys are too young to remember Compuserve?
Ah yes the days of treating the internet like a phone line?
Wikipedia said:
This gave CompuServe the largest selection of local dial-up phone connections in the world, in an era when network usage charges were expensive, but still lower than long distance charges. Other networks permitted CompuServe access to still more locations, including international locations, usually with substantial connect-time surcharges. It was common in the early 1980s to pay a $30-per-hour charge to connect to CompuServe, which at the time cost $5 to $6 per hour before factoring in the connect-time surcharges. This resulted in the company being nicknamed CompuSpend, Compu$erve or CI$.

I can only hope there might be some ISP who will be willing to be completely blind to whatever website you visit. Unfortunately it is likely that it will come at the cost of an extremely high subscription price, low speed all around, and some sort of 2 to 5 year lock in plan. I can only hope there will be some ISP out there who will let you access the darknet in the future.
The alternative is google swooping in and offering it's own ISP with few restrictions. Instead they'll just spy on you and sell everybit of information you give them.
Google CEO said:
If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

I doubt most people will miss the internet (as we know it). They mostly just want email and news. I can't see online shopping being too adversely effected by this. News won't require too much bandwidth either. Youtube and Netflix will feel it though; long load times might drive people back to satellite/cable and redbox rentals. Steam and other online game shops aren't mainstream enough for people to care about. I suspected there might be a 'gamer' plan from an ISP that will give steam or other major gaming services the fast lane but, it will be very costly and fairly restrictive.

I fear we're entering a dark age of some sort. I wonder what other ISPs in the world will do. Will Canada and Mexico's ISPs follow America's examples? What about England and Australia?
 
It goes beyond that. I paid $70 USD (3500PHP) for 50Mbps Internet (6MBps). If I accessed Gmail, Google, YouTube, Google Docs, etc, my Internet would slow to a crawl. It would take 45 seconds to open Google. Videos would stutter. Facebook? Instantly. Switch to my VPN and hide my connections's source/destination, Google loads instantly again. Faster to connect to Sweden and then to Swedish Google than it is to connect to Filipino Google from the Philippines.

This is specifically what Net Neutrality is designed to protect against. It is not fiction. It is not slippery slope. It already exists.

It really flim-flammed my jim-jams when so many fucking idiots decided they were opposed to net neutrality just because Obama said something noncommittally and uselessly in its favor, as if it was some Islamic bullshit he'd imported from Kenya rather than a foundational principle of the Internet pretty much before the Internet even existed.
 
If anyone complains about humanities progress seemingly stalling this fucking shit here is why. Corporations hate innovation because it forces them to compete. They'd much rather form giant monopolies and then sell the same mediocre product forever because that's more profitable.

Anarcho capitalism is retarded.
 
Back